Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Clerk notes

Copied from the original request and placed on this talk page

Three of the four articles I listed above have been protected in the last month due to edit warring and/or are under protection currently. Thatcher131 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, one of the articles mentioned in the arbitration "Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity" has been deleted. It is now impossible to collect diff's from that article. I have asked that it be made available in locked form during the arbitration so that we can collect diff's. I hope I haven't overstepped any boundaries here... maybe it should have been your call. Pete K 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can do that if and when the case is opened. Thatcher131 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but won't that be too late for those of us who are preparing for the case? We've been advised to start collecting diffs and evidence. I'm just trying to be prepared. Thanks! Pete K 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally there is a minimum 7 day grace period after the case opens before the arbitrators start considering the evidence. In the event that the case never opens, I'd rather not undelete it early. Thatcher131 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I thought somebody said 24 hours. I was thinking this whole thing could be done by the Thanksgiving, but it looks like we're shooting for Christmas. Pete K 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you the one to address the question I posted above?: "HGilbert's statement is now 950 words long and growing. Both Diana W and myself have indicated that we would have provided more in the way of a statement if we weren't trying to be brief and stay within the guidelines (I know my statement went over the 500 word limit too). Are we suspending these guidelines now (can I expand my statement too) or should Mr. Gilbert be asked to trim his statement? There are allegations made here that are out of order and that need to be addressed. Thanks! Pete K 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)" Who knows how long HGilbert's statement may stay on the board here. It may be two weeks before arbitration is accepted. It doesn't seem fair that he wrote the Arbitration Request, the Brief Summary (which I ammended and he moved) and now posts a personal statement that is twice as long as everyone elses. Just sayin'... (and not trying to be a pest). Pete K 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now that we apparently have enough arbitrators, can we have some clarification on what we are arbitrating? This was intended originally to be a conflict of interest violation arbitration about a single article, but the editor who pre-empted this issue and filed the arbitration request has turned it into a much different, and much larger issue. There has been a recent (see the last sentence of Venado's statement) complaint that the conflict of interest issue has been added. Could the arbitration committee please let us know what we are arbitrating so we will know what evidence to collect? Thanks! Pete K 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally, arbitration cases look at editors' behavior. Be prepared to show evidence of bad behavior, such as revert warring, misrepresenting sources, article ownership, etc. Conflict of interest would fall into this category if it led to inappropriate editing. The arbitrators will likely consider the actions of editors on both sides of the dispute. Thatcher131 02:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks. Pete K 05:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A way forward

I for one feel that the evidence phase has pretty much reached the limit of its usefulness now. I'm left with the question how this process can go forward, and now await the arbitrators' deliberations. Some general impressions I am left with:

• It is clear that these articles need to be extremely solidly grounded to avoid any appearance of bias on either side. One of the problems hitherto has been a lack of citations to support them. Though much of the content's factuality is not in question, rather its appropriateness to the articles, I see this as an important step towards improving their professionality.
• The edit warring is fruitless; somehow conversations that go somewhere have to take their place. We have tried agreements in the past. One example was a painfully arrived at agreement that all sites containing original research should be avoided as links. (Questions then arose: what about objective material, such as a trial transcript, that resides on such a site. We took a conservative position: avoid any appearance of questionable linkage, and this seemed to function.) Such agreements, including the Wikipedia guidelines themselves, when held to, have had a degree of success. When not held to, there have been problems. Perhaps a set of agreements could be laid down with a zero-tolerance policy: if the agreements are violated, or personal attacks or incivil comments are made, the violating editor is blocked from the whole group of articles for an extended period of time.
• I hope that some way forward is found that allows everyone's, and I mean everyone's, creative energies to find more productive channels. Hgilbert 00:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would hope your creative energies would find the productive channel of writing more excellent books on Waldorf and concentrating on your work in the classroom. After going through and seeing how much effort you have put into the various articles here, it seems clear that Wikipedia has taken far too much of your time and I would guess it has robbed your students of your full energy and attention - something they rightfully deserve. I mean this in the most respectful way possible. Pete K 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)